Settlements

President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly touched very lightly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That alone is a step forward: in previous years, he has made it a central part of his speech and left the impression that it is the main issue in world affairs.

In 2009, his first address to the UN, he took only 2 paragraphs and said, “The time has come to re-launch negotiations.” He was just getting going.

In 2010, it was 14 paragraphs and the center of his whole speech. He took pride in the launch of negotiations and exuded optimism: if we all worked hard, “when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations -- an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”

In 2011, he was at it again, 11 paragraphs, but noting that “the parties have not bridged their differences.” No new member for the UN, but still a central part of his remarks.

In 2012, things hadn’t worked out, so he was down to one paragraph. “The road is hard,” he explained.

In 2013, he said, “In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” and he was back up to 5 paragraphs. Hope springs eternal: “We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.” This was the year Obama visited Israel. “Let’s support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace,” he said, optimistic about Kerry’s efforts to get new talks going.

This year, he drops the idea that this conflict is central and indeed singles it out for criticism.

Here is what he said:

“As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a way to distract people from problems at home. “

That’s progress, and as in 2013 the issue gets only one paragraph. Obama has come a long way. Just this week his former national security advisor, Jim Jones, said that “I’m of the belief that had God appeared in front of President Obama in 2009 and said if he could do one thing on the face of the planet, and one thing only, to make the world a better place and give people more hope and opportunity for the future, I would venture that it would have something to do with finding the two-state solution to the Middle East.” Jones himself still needs re-education. In the same address he said what he’s been saying since serving in the White House: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “one of the most important issues on the planet, and it affects just about everything from the security standpoint.” Obama is no longer saying that.

But the president still has not junked the “S” word, “sustainable.” In the same paragraph of his UN speech today he said this:

“And the violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security.”

Not sustainable! The Obama folk cannot resist the term. At the Munich Security Conference this year, the secretary of state was enthusiastic: “Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100-percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable.” He, Secretary of State Clinton, and just about every other Obama administration official has used the term—and now Obama does it again. The “status quo in the West Bank and Gaza” has actually done a very good imitation of being sustainable, given that it has been sustained for 47 years—since 1967.

Well, Sharon got the Israelis out of Gaza in 2005, but in the West Bank things have changed less.

This week the EU took a stance that it heralded as pro-peace, pro-"peace process," and anti-settlement. Henceforth, new guidelines require all 28 member nations to refuse any grants, scholarships, prizes, or funding to entities in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Or any part of Jerusalem that was not part of Israel prior to the 1967 war. Or the Golan Heights.

Speaking at a press conference today in Ramallah, President Obama said he doesn't "want to put the cart before the horse" in terms of dealing with the so-called settlement issue before the security issue:

On January 29, Israel’s cabinet approved new “housing benefits” for “national priority areas.” The exact application of these benefits to communities in the West Bank is unclear, to me at least, but the cabinet statement says, “The decision is designed to encourage positive migration to the communities.” News reports suggest that of the 557 communities eligible for the aid, 70 are in the West Bank: “The list of qualifying settlements include major enclaves that would likely remain in Israeli hands under a peace deal. But most are located deep inside the West Bank and likely would have to be dismantled.”

Last Friday night, March 11, Palestinian terrorists broke into a home in the West Bank settlement of Itamar and stabbed to death everyone they found inside. The father, Udi Fogel, and his three-month-old daughter, Hadas, had their throats slit in bed. The mother, Ruth, was stabbed as she came out of the bathroom.

Talks between Israelis and Palestinians should be mindful of the settlers' perspective.

When direct talks begin next week between Israelis and Palestinians, the fate of Jewish settlers in the West Bank – tens of thousands of them – will be a major issue in the negotiations. But the settlers themselves won’t be part of the discussion. Nor have American officials involved in the talks been willing to meet with them.

A response to Robert Wright.

I’ve read Mr. Wright’s article a half dozen times, and I’m struggling to understand his strange definition of what it means to be pro-Israel. It seems that to Mr. Wright the more loudly you criticize Israel, the more pro-Israel you can claim to be. By that standard, the United Nations is a bastion of pro-Israel sentiment.

That’s a strange view of friendship. Wright and the Obama administration are in a frenzy over the view that Jews in certain Jerusalem neighborhoods are the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Wright certainly knows that most Palestinians consider all of Israel a “settlement.” They don’t want Jews in Jerusalem, and they don’t want them in Tel Aviv. They don’t want a Jewish state period.

A Parody.

12:00 PM, Mar 19, 2010 • By

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday about the state of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, demanding that Israel take immediate steps to show it is interested in renewing efforts to achieve a Middle East peace agreement.